Analytics

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Error

Marcus Aurelius writes:
If any one can convince me of an error, I shall be very glad to change my opinion, for truth is my business, and nobody was ever yet hurt by it. No; he that continues in ignorance and mistake, it is he that receives the mischief.
I've found that admitting you are mistaken is usually a nice way to avoid getting tangled up in lengthy arguments. Admitting error to others is useful, but even more useful is to admit it to yourself, since admitting ignorance is necessary to learning. We can't let psychological hangups prevent us from understanding the truth.

Sometimes I wonder how much of my knowledge is wrong. I'd bet it is a fairly hefty percent, something on the order of 20%. And I'm pretty meticulous and careful about what I believe, because I believe, as Marcus Aurelius does, that "truth is my business".

I recently read Wrong by David H. Freedman, which touches on the subject as well. The book details how science can (and does) go wrong, and how expertise is often misused or misrepresented. It isn't anti-science or anti-expertise, but it is a good guide to how careful we have to be even with the most trust-worthy institutions. I'd highly recommend that book if truth is your business as well.

Monday, December 13, 2010

Stoic religion

The following passage from Seneca's writings on benefits have me a bit confused:
The Stoics represent the several functions of the Almighty Power under several appelations. When they speak of him as the father and the fountain of all beings, they call him Bacchus: and under the name of Hercules, they denote him to be indefatigable and invincible; and in the contemplation of him in the reason, order, proportion, and window of his proceedings, they call him Mercury; so that which way soever they look and under what name soever they couch their meaning, they never fail of finding him; for he is everywhere.
This sounds a lot like monotheism, and a lot like what I've heard of the Trinity (I'm not Christian, so I don't know these things in detail). I wonder what the story is. Was this a common conception of God?

Saturday, December 11, 2010

Personality versus Stoicism

Personality has a strong genetic component. It may be genetics interacting with the environment, or it may be just genetics, but what seems clear is that it is hard to change your innate personality. What this means for Stoics is that philosophically urging us to be happy and content, and to have a Stoic outlook on life, may not have much effect. Those who are happy people will be happy. Those who are not happy will not be happy. We may not be able to teach unhappy people to be happy through Stoic philosophy.

This is an important point, I think. We just don't know if Stoic philosophy can actually affect happiness or tranquility, or if it does work if it can work for all. Yes, Stoicism is great, but like all interesting things, it must be tested.

Thursday, December 9, 2010

The unfriendly neighbor

My neighbor, for whatever reason, has been not saying hello to my wife, and she now vows she will not say hello to him. These are the minor squabbles I get to hear about.

I gave her some advice from Stoicism: keep saying hello. You can't control how people act to you, but you can control how you act to other people. It doesn't even take much effort to say hello. Why not keep doing it?

But that's not the way she sees it. If someone is not nice to me, I don't have to be nice to them. I can't say that's wrong, or even non-Stoical. Seneca said he would rather bestow gifts on the worthy than the unworthy. But this is a small gift that is easy to give. I think it makes sense to keep giving it.

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

Being sick

I have a minor cold. Epictetus writes:
Show me one who is sick, and happy; in danger, and happy; dying, and happy; exiled, and happy; disgraced, and happy. Show him to me; for, by Heaven! I long to see a Stoic.
I consider myself to be a pretty happy person. But I can't say I recall being happy when being sick. Right now I'm not too sick, so I can be happy. But if this turns into a full-fledged cold, then I'll be miserable. That's just the way it is with sickness. Happy, and sick? I can try, and I will try. But I'm not optimistic.

Monday, December 6, 2010

Stoic-like quote: Control of your experiences

I'm fairly interested in the science of focus, and methods to improve it. I suppose I feel, like we all do, that I'm not good enough at concentrating. I'll write more on this later.

Yesterday, I was reading an old but fascinating article on focus in the New York Times. The quote at the end has a particularly Stoic ring to it:

“People don’t understand that attention is a finite resource, like money,” she said. “Do you want to invest your cognitive cash on endless Twittering or Net surfing or couch potatoing? You’re constantly making choices, and your choices determine your experience, just as William James said.”

During her cancer treatment several years ago, Ms. Gallagher said, she managed to remain relatively cheerful by keeping in mind James’s mantra as well as a line from Milton: “The mind is its own place, and in itself/ Can make a heav'n of hell, a hell of heav'n.”

“When I woke up in the morning,” Ms. Gallagher said, “I’d ask myself: Do you want to lie here paying attention to the very good chance you’ll die and leave your children motherless, or do you want to get up and wash your face and pay attention to your work and your family and your friends? Hell or heaven — it’s your choice.”

There's a lot of this kind of advice out there. The Stoics certainly didn't have a monopoly on emphasizing the primacy of our own outlook. The ubiquity of it shows how fundamental and useful this sort of thinking can be.

Thursday, December 2, 2010

Retreats

Marcus Aurelius writes:
We seek retreats for ourselves, houses in the country, seashores, and mountains; and you too are disposed to desire such things very much. But this is altogether a mark of the most common sort of person, for it is in your power whenever you shall choose to retire into yourself. For nowhere either with more quiet or more freedom from trouble do you retire than into your own soul, particularly when you have within you such thoughts that by looking into them you are immediately in perfect tranquility; and I affirm that tranquility is nothing else than the good ordering of the mind.
I just finished reading Walden recently, as I previously mentioned. Thoreau's two years at Walden is a perfect example of a well-used retreat. Could Walden had conducted his retreat purely mentally, while going about his everyday life? I think not. The whole point of his retreat is a complete break with both his own habits and the habits that civilizations forces on us. This is where the wonderful philosophy of Walden comes from. And the observations of nature that permeate the book would obviously not be possible with merely a mental retreat. Only with an actual retreat was he able to describe nature with a careful and analytic eye.

A change of scenery is good for us. There's truth that we can achieve tranquility without it, but the scenery change is a good psychological prod for us to change for the better as well. So, maybe we can still practice to achieve the tranquility a retreat brings even without the retreat. But the retreat will always offer us unique advantages.